Adnan Syed (Serial) - Murder convcation vacated

[Chet Steadman 940]

Maryland State Court of Appeals grants Adnan a new trial:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/us/adnan-syed-serial.html

[Grandioso 2,592]

I hope the Lee family, Jay, the former prosecutors, and witnesses/jurors from the first trial get out in front of some TV cameras and put his shit on blast.

[NorthLoop 14,203]

Yeah nothing on that podcast convinced me of his innocence. Seemed pretty clear that he did it. 

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

1 minute ago, NorthLoop said:

Yeah nothing on that podcast convinced me of his innocence. Seemed pretty clear that he did it. 

Seems pretty clear that Adnan is an angel and it was all that son of a bitch Jay's fault. 

And there had better be a Serial 2 that really digs into the cell phone towers and Best Buy pay phones. That shit is electric. 

[Rollo Tomassi 80]

Man, I remember the hype around this podcast.  None of the issues raised in the podcast made me think the conviction was wrong or that he was innocent.  I was surprised so many people took issue w/ it.

[Viper 12,109]

3 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

Yeah nothing on that podcast convinced me of his innocence. Seemed pretty clear that he did it. 

he's the only one that make sense. Hopefully the state can put on a case and prove it this time.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

Agree that nothing on the podcast convinced me he was innocent, but they produced enough info that I questioned whether he was guilty.   However I fully admit that I don't have strong feelings on the matter either way.     

I do disagree with a system that allows for retrials 18 years after the original trial.   I don't think anyone's memory is solid enough to withstand questioning after close to 20 years.   The state should just get him to plead guilty for a lesser charge with a sentence of time served.   Both sides can declare victory and move on.  Otherwise they will waste taxpayer money on a new trial that will most likely result in a not guilty verdict.    

[sachick 1,189]

1 minute ago, Viper said:

he's the only one that make sense. Hopefully the state can put on a case and prove it this time.

My problem with the conviction was that it "made sense" but didn't prove without a reasonable doubt. Arguments could be made that Jay did it.

[Chewbacca 7,779]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Agree that nothing on the podcast convinced me he was innocent, but they produced enough info that I questioned whether he was guilty.   However I fully admit that I don't have strong feelings on the matter either way.     

I do disagree with a system that allows for retrials 18 years after the original trial.   I don't think anyone's memory is solid enough to withstand questioning after close to 20 years.   The state should just get him to plead guilty for a lesser charge with a sentence of time served.   Both sides can declare victory and move on.  Otherwise they will waste taxpayer money on a new trial that will most likely result in a not guilty verdict.    

This is pretty much where I am.  He very well might have done it, but I don't think that was really conclusively proven by the state.  Their case was paper thin and he likely walks with a competent defense attorney.

[Viper 12,109]

2 minutes ago, sachick said:

My problem with the conviction was that it "made sense" but didn't prove without a reasonable doubt. Arguments could be made that Jay did it.

I definitely agree that they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, but I think they could have proven that if they'd put on a better case.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

for me, the case was muddled enough for him to be not guilty. that sucks for the family of the victim. i'm not convinced of his innocence, either. but the state did not put forth a convincing case, and the defense did not mount a competent enough defense, imo. i guess we'll see how it ends up.

[Hellraiser97 181]

Yeah, I was not convinced he was innocent, but if the evidence had been portrayed at the trial like it was in the podcast (which of course has no standard to measure against), I could not have returned a guilty verdict.

[Lobwedgephil 1,139]

Still think he was guilty, but his lawyer sucked and case was weak. 

[Digdogger 1,344]

I don’t trust any one with that type of name, if you know what I mean

[bschoolprof 6,254]

The opinion (and dissent) can be read here.

Technically, the circuit court had already granted Adnan a new trial in post-convictions proceedings, ruling that a) his attorney failed to pursue Asia as an alibi witness, but this was not prejudicial because it likely wouldn't have affected the outcome of the case, and b) his attorney was deficient in not raising concerns about a fax cover sheet disclaimer on the reliability of cell tower evidence.  It was because of b) that the circuit court ordered a new trial.

What happened today was that on appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the order of a new trial, but on the grounds of a) (Asia), not b).  The court ruled that b) had already been waived as it had not been raised earlier in the proceedings.  

I'm guessing the state can appeal this to the maryland supreme court.  It will be interesting to see if they do.  

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

54 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Agree that nothing on the podcast convinced me he was innocent, but they produced enough info that I questioned whether he was guilty.   However I fully admit that I don't have strong feelings on the matter either way.     

I do disagree with a system that allows for retrials 18 years after the original trial.   I don't think anyone's memory is solid enough to withstand questioning after close to 20 years.   The state should just get him to plead guilty for a lesser charge with a sentence of time served.   Both sides can declare victory and move on.  Otherwise they will waste taxpayer money on a new trial that will most likely result in a not guilty verdict.    

I get what you're saying about retrial 18 years later.  But the alternative seems to be some sort of "finality of judgment" rule that says you can't reopen or retry a case, under any circumstances, X years after judgment is entered.  That kind of thing is OK for civil litigation, I suppose (it has to be over at some point), but seems really out of place to me in criminal litigation.  Many criminal appeals and writs are denied on "finality of judgment" grounds and it's pretty lame to me.

And, as you note, from the prosecution standpoint, 18 years later is a significant handicap for witness availability and reliability.  Could be for the defense, as well.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I get what you're saying about retrial 18 years later.  But the alternative seems to be some sort of "finality of judgment" rule that says you can't reopen or retry a case, under any circumstances, X years after judgment is entered.  That kind of thing is OK for civil litigation, I suppose (it has to be over at some point), but seems really out of place to me in criminal litigation.  Many criminal appeals and writs are denied on "finality of judgment" grounds and it's pretty lame to me.

And, as you note, from the prosecution standpoint, 18 years later is a significant handicap for witness availability and reliability.  Could be for the defense, as well.

True but the burden is on the prosecution.   

And I get that limiting the # of years would create injustice as well.  I just don't see it being feasible to ask witnesses to reliably state what happened 20 years ago.  At best, its a memory of a memory by now.   You might recall your testimony more than the actual event.  Or recall what you've read about the case.    

[Sandman 3,403]

43 minutes ago, Lobwedgephil said:

Still think he was guilty, but his lawyer sucked and case was weak. 

I thought his lawyer just wasn't up for this kind of case. I don't know how I would've voted as a juror. I can see both sides. 

[Anwar Namtut 344]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

for me, the case was muddled enough for him to be not guilty. that sucks for the family of the victim. i'm not convinced of his innocence, either. but the state did not put forth a convincing case, and the defense did not mount a competent enough defense, imo. i guess we'll see how it ends up.

 

1 hour ago, Hellraiser97 said:

Yeah, I was not convinced he was innocent, but if the evidence had been portrayed at the trial like it was in the podcast (which of course has no standard to measure against), I could not have returned a guilty verdict.

Same with me. I wasn't convinced he didn't do it, but as mentioned, if I was on the jury, I could not have convicted. 

[DanRydell 799]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I get what you're saying about retrial 18 years later.  But the alternative seems to be some sort of "finality of judgment" rule that says you can't reopen or retry a case, under any circumstances, X years after judgment is entered.  That kind of thing is OK for civil litigation, I suppose (it has to be over at some point), but seems really out of place to me in criminal litigation.  Many criminal appeals and writs are denied on "finality of judgment" grounds and it's pretty lame to me.

And, as you note, from the prosecution standpoint, 18 years later is a significant handicap for witness availability and reliability.  Could be for the defense, as well.

Yeah, a trial 18 years after the fact is far from ideal but it's a lot better than letting someone continue to rot in jail despite not receiving a fair trial.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,112]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

for me, the case was muddled enough for him to be not guilty. that sucks for the family of the victim. i'm not convinced of his innocence, either. but the state did not put forth a convincing case, and the defense did not mount a competent enough defense, imo. i guess we'll see how it ends up.

Cosign

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

True but the burden is on the prosecution.   

And I get that limiting the # of years would create injustice as well.  I just don't see it being feasible to ask witnesses to reliably state what happened 20 years ago.  At best, its a memory of a memory by now.   You might recall your testimony more than the actual event.  Or recall what you've read about the case.    

Yep, the party with the burden of proof suffers the most under a belated retrial scheme, but I like that allocation of risk. 

And, the state doesn't have to fight every appeal so that the process takes 18 years, either.  I am frequently appalled at the stances DAs take when the injustice in a trial becomes manifest.

The state holds all the cards, if they want to risk postponing a retrial by fighting, that's fine.  They have plenty of other alternatives.

[Chuychanga 133]

Yeah, him being the most likely suspect and a sense that he probably did it isn’t enough for me.  He may very well have killed her but I’d have let him walk if the trial was as described in the podcast.  

[JBJ 3,654]

I don't think the state's case is strong, but he had am even weaker defense.  I'm not sure what I'd do on the jury, but if it were a bookie I'd be betting he did it.

Edited March 29, 2018 by JBJ

[Deej 76,791]

They'll get him on his next murder.

[clapclapclap 9,000]

 

He Syed, She Syed cases are tough to prove.

[Grandioso 2,592]

The problem with Serial was that the podcast essentially used Adnan's appellate brief at the time as a starting point: "what are the holes in this case against Adnan?" Then, not a single key witness is interviewed (admittedly because no one wanted to talk to Sarah Koenig). Everyone was spinning their wheels about Asia and Nisha - two witnesses who don't mean shit compared to nearly everyone else - because the show made them seem important. We didn't hear from any of the detectives, lab technicians, Jay, the Lee family, Hae Min's closest friends, Hae Min's teacher, the cell phone tower expert, the medical examiner, Don, and more. 

[DanRydell 799]

The problem with Serial was that the podcast essentially used Adnan's appellate brief at the time as a starting point: "what are the holes in this case against Adnan?" Then, not a single key witness is interviewed (admittedly because no one wanted to talk to Sarah Koenig). Everyone was spinning their wheels about Asia and Nisha - two witnesses who don't mean shit compared to nearly everyone else - because the show made them seem important. We didn't hear from any of the detectives, lab technicians, Jay, the Lee family, Hae Min's closest friends, Hae Min's teacher, the cell phone tower expert, the medical examiner, Don, and more. 

A court of appeals just determined Asia was significant enough to overturn his conviction so its tough to say she doesn’t mean shit.

[DanRydell 799]

The problem with Serial was that the podcast essentially used Adnan's appellate brief at the time as a starting point: "what are the holes in this case against Adnan?" Then, not a single key witness is interviewed (admittedly because no one wanted to talk to Sarah Koenig). Everyone was spinning their wheels about Asia and Nisha - two witnesses who don't mean shit compared to nearly everyone else - because the show made them seem important. We didn't hear from any of the detectives, lab technicians, Jay, the Lee family, Hae Min's closest friends, Hae Min's teacher, the cell phone tower expert, the medical examiner, Don, and more. 

A court of appeals just determined Asia was significant enough to overturn his conviction so its tough to say she doesn’t mean shit.

[Atxhorn 0]

He probably did do it but jay is shady as shit and the only real evidence was cell tower records. 

[Atxhorn 0]

Plus her new boyfriend that worked in the mall had his mom falsify his time card I think, so there’s that too. 

Wouldn’t have been able to convict if I was on the jury. 

[jdhorn92 1,549]

Seems like the retrial will rely heavily on Aiesha's testimony of remembering that she did indeed see him in the library.  Its been a few months since i listened to the Podcast, but wasn't that something the NPR chick keyed in on?

[Viper 12,109]

yes they went over it pretty thoroughly. I think it's what let them to think that the police may have had the timeline wrong if Adnan did it. They later did a test of a new timeline that better matched with the alibi. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Viper

[CurlyDumps 4,471]

Serial doesn't even really scratch the service on all the weirdness, inconsistencies, and questionable shit that the prosecution pulled. It also doesn't really get into what a trainwreck Adnan's lawyer was.  She was physically falling apart and juggling way too many cases at once. She was in denial about her poor health, and took on way more work than she could handle.  She's her own tragic story.  A once great (or at least good) lawyer who literally worked herself to death.  

I've paid attention to the case quite a bit over the years.  Jay is what fascinates me the most about this case.  I'm way more interested in the truth about Jay. My theory is that Jay was not involved in all.  Adnan could have done it, but I don't think Jay knows fuck-all about who really killed Hae Min Lee. It's a pretty out there theory,  but not all that implausible IMO.  

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by CurlyDumps

[chainsaw 9,868]

Jay isn't as dumb as he acted.  He lies through his teeth.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,112]

What they never seemed to dive into, but what always stood out to me, was why Jay never really got thought of as a suspect, especially since he’s the one that knew where the car was, had access to the car, and overall seemed shady. 

It was surprising to me as well that the Serial people didn’t articulate more about why that was, but they didn’t seem to think it was a big deal either. 

[NorthLoop 14,203]

6 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

What they never seemed to dive into, but what always stood out to me, was why Jay never really got thought of as a suspect, especially since he’s the one that knew where the car was, had access to the car, and overall seemed shady. 

It was surprising to me as well that the Serial people didn’t articulate more about why that was, but they didn’t seem to think it was a big deal either. 

The fact that Adnan never really said he thought Jay did it either tells you something. If I were innocent, and a guy I knew said I did it PLUS knew all this shit, I'd be screaming from the top of my lungs "THIS GUY HAD TO HAVE DONE IT". Adnan never does that, which is one reason I think he's guilty. 

[sachick 1,189]

The fact that Adnan never really said he thought Jay did it either tells you something. If I were innocent, and a guy I knew said I did it PLUS knew all this shit, I'd be screaming from the top of my lungs "THIS GUY HAD TO HAVE DONE IT". Adnan never does that, which is one reason I think he's guilty. 

I don’t know, same could be said if I was guilty. If I was guilty I would be screaming “that guy over there did it. “ Anything to get them to look at anyone else but me. I think overall it was a shit case with a shit defense attorney and a teenager shouldn’t be sent to prison for life with all these shitty circumstances.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

Adnan made some bad decisions in regards to his defense.  Could be because he was guilty or because he was a kid that had bad advice from his lawyer and family.    And perhaps both.    Prosecutor should be looking to make a deal with adnan.  Plead guilty for time served or a relatively small amount of time.  I don’t see how any adnan supporter could fault him for that.

[chainsaw 9,868]

actually think adnan has been consistent with his "i don't know shit" stance, and i'm more inclined to believe that than if he frantically accused Jay of murdering Hae.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

Question for the lawyers here.  On tv shows, an innocent person decides to plead guilty to a crime for a reduced sentence.  The judge asks them to describe the crime and that they’re guilty.  The person hems and haws and the judge forces it out that they are only pleading guilty because they decided it wasn’t worth the risk of a longer sentence if they are found guilty.  The judge tosses out the plea and the trial commences.     Is that how it happens?   Do judges require a full confession and if so, why?   I’m asking because I would bet adnan would plead guilty but not go as far as describe how he killed the girl.  

 

I have to admit that I’m thinking about listening to serial again to recall the story in more detail.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie

[DocZaius 65]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Question for the lawyers here.  On tv shows, an innocent person decides to plead guilty to a crime for a reduced sentence.  The judge asks them to describe the crime and that they’re guilty.  The person hems and haws and the judge forces it out that they are only pleading guilty because they decided it wasn’t worth the risk of a longer sentence if they are found guilty.  The judge tosses out the plea and the trial commences.     Is that how it happens?   Do judges require a full confession and if so, why?   I’m asking because I would bet adnan would plead guilty but not go as far as describe how he killed the girl.  

 

I have to admit that I’m thinking about listening to serial again to recall the story in more detail.

That varies by jurisdiction, but the reason the judge asks all those questions is to ensure that there is some factual basis for the plea - that is, the defendant is pleading guilty because he really is factually guilty of the crime.  At least nominally, he's giving some indication that he's not being coerced into admitting a crime that he didn't commit.

There is also something, however, called an "Alford plea," which is what ultimately happened with the West Memphis Three.  An "Alford plea" is where the defendant maintains his innocence but pleads guilty because he is acknowledges that there is sufficient evidence to convict him.

There are a handful of states that don't recognize Alford pleas; I'm not sure if Maryland is one of them.  The trial judge usually has the discretion to accept or reject such a plea in any event because it does set up the possibility that the defendant is being railroaded into taking a deal.

[bschoolprof 6,254]

The state just appealed the "new trial" ruling to the state supreme court.  

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-adnan-syed-appeal-20180514-story.html

 

[Atxhorn 0]

On 5/14/2018 at 10:19 PM, sachick said:

I don’t know, same could be said if I was guilty. If I was guilty I would be screaming “that guy over there did it. “ Anything to get them to look at anyone else but me. I think overall it was a shit case with a shit defense attorney and a teenager shouldn’t be sent to prison for life with all these shitty circumstances.

I was surprised that a seemingly normal teenager was sentenced to life. He had no prior run ins with police that I can think of hearing about on podcast and if he did do it was obviously a crime of passion and not premeditated. Wouldn’t that be second degree and not an automatic life sentence?

[bschoolprof 6,254]

The Maryland Court of Appeals (their state supreme court) overturned the Court of Special Appeals ruling 4-3.  Adan's conviction is thus reinstated and he is not granted a new trial.

article

opinion

There were two legal questions the court took on:

1) Whether Adnan had waived a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating the reliability of cell phone tower evidence.  The court rules yes - he waived it because he did not raise this issue originally in his post-conviction proceedings.  This all grew out of post-serial internet sleuthing.  Even the dissenting justices agreed on the waiver issue. More on this if interested:

Spoiler

After serial ended and the internet got ahold of the case files, some noticed that a fax cover sheet sent by AT&T to the police as part of the cell tower location evidence indicated that "incoming calls are not reliable for location." The exact meaning of this and the implications for the case are still hotly disputed. Those who think Adnan is guilty argue this is boilerplate information that refers to a report that was not used to establish call location. Adnan's supporters say it calls the cell phone evidence into question and should have been investigated by his trial attorney.  There was a great deal of testimony on this issue at the latest post-conviction proceedings in 2016, but it's still a muddled mess.  Regardless, the court ruled that since Adnan had this evidence in the defense files all along and did not bring up this issue in his initial post conviction proceedings, he had waived the claim. Even the dissent agreed it had been waived. 

2) Whether Adnan's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not investigating Asia. This is a two pronged test: a) whether counsel was deficient in investigating the witness (the majority ruled yes); 2) whether the deficiency was "prejudicial" or would have mattered in terms of the verdict (the majority ruled no).  More on why they said no:

Spoiler

Here is their reasoning from the opinion:

"Even taking Ms. McClain’s statements as true, her alibi does little more than to call into question the time that the State claimed Ms. Lee was killed and does nothing to rebut the evidence establishing Mr. Syed’s motive and opportunity to kill Ms. Lee. Thus, the jury could have disbelieved that Mr. Syed killed Ms. Lee by 2:36 p.m., as the State’s timeline suggested, yet still believed that Mr. Syed had the opportunity to kill Ms. Lee after 2:40 p.m. Ms. McClain’s testimony, according to her affidavit, failed to account for Mr. Syed’s whereabouts after 2:40 p.m. on January 13, 1999. Likewise, Mr. Syed’s statements to the police fail to account for his whereabouts after 2:15 p.m. when school let out. Therefore, even if the alibi testimony had been admitted into evidence it could not have affected the outcome of the case because that evidence did not negate Mr. Syed’s criminal agency."

They then recount Jay's testimony, Jenn's testimony, testimony of other witnesses that saw the two together that night, the cell phone evidence, and Adnan's inconsistent statement to police about asking for  ride, etc. They go on to say:

"Given the totality of the evidence the jury heard, we conclude that there is not a significant or substantial possibility that the verdict would have been different had trial counsel presented Ms. McClain as an alibi witness. Ms. McClain would have been an alibi witness who contradicted the defendant’s own statements, which were themselves already internally inconsistent; thus Ms. McClain’s proffered testimony could have further undermined Mr. Syed’s credibility. Moreover, Ms. McClain’s account was cabined to a narrow window of time in the afternoon of January 13, 1999. Her testimony would not have served to rebut the evidence the State presented relative to Mr. Syed’s actions on the evening of January 13, 1999. At best, her testimony would have highlighted Mr. Syed’s failure to account precisely for his whereabouts after school on January 13, 1999. Trial counsel’s deficient performance, therefore, could not have prejudiced Mr. Syed in light of the totality of the evidence presented to the jury." 

 

 

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

This takes the wind out of the HBO doc that's about to air this weekend...

[Capn81 372]

This takes the wind out of the HBO doc that's about to air this weekend...

I was thinking the same thing. Terrible timing for HBO.

[Kyle 207]

4 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

The Maryland Court of Appeals (their state supreme court) overturned the Court of Special Appeals ruling 4-3.  Adan's conviction is thus reinstated and he is not granted a new trial.

article

opinion

There were two legal questions the court took on:

1) Whether Adnan had waived a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating the reliability of cell phone tower evidence.  The court rules yes - he waived it because he did not raise this issue originally in his post-conviction proceedings.  This all grew out of post-serial internet sleuthing.  Even the dissenting justices agreed on the waiver issue. More on this if interested:

  Reveal hidden contents

After serial ended and the internet got ahold of the case files, some noticed that a fax cover sheet sent by AT&T to the police as part of the cell tower location evidence indicated that "incoming calls are not reliable for location." The exact meaning of this and the implications for the case are still hotly disputed. Those who think Adnan is guilty argue this is boilerplate information that refers to a report that was not used to establish call location. Adnan's supporters say it calls the cell phone evidence into question and should have been investigated by his trial attorney.  There was a great deal of testimony on this issue at the latest post-conviction proceedings in 2016, but it's still a muddled mess.  Regardless, the court ruled that since Adnan had this evidence in the defense files all along and did not bring up this issue in his initial post conviction proceedings, he had waived the claim. Even the dissent agreed it had been waived. 

2) Whether Adnan's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not investigating Asia. This is a two pronged test: a) whether counsel was deficient in investigating the witness (the majority ruled yes); 2) whether the deficiency was "prejudicial" or would have mattered in terms of the verdict (the majority ruled no).  More on why they said no:

  Hide contents

Here is their reasoning from the opinion:

"Even taking Ms. McClain’s statements as true, her alibi does little more than to call into question the time that the State claimed Ms. Lee was killed and does nothing to rebut the evidence establishing Mr. Syed’s motive and opportunity to kill Ms. Lee. Thus, the jury could have disbelieved that Mr. Syed killed Ms. Lee by 2:36 p.m., as the State’s timeline suggested, yet still believed that Mr. Syed had the opportunity to kill Ms. Lee after 2:40 p.m. Ms. McClain’s testimony, according to her affidavit, failed to account for Mr. Syed’s whereabouts after 2:40 p.m. on January 13, 1999. Likewise, Mr. Syed’s statements to the police fail to account for his whereabouts after 2:15 p.m. when school let out. Therefore, even if the alibi testimony had been admitted into evidence it could not have affected the outcome of the case because that evidence did not negate Mr. Syed’s criminal agency."

They then recount Jay's testimony, Jenn's testimony, testimony of other witnesses that saw the two together that night, the cell phone evidence, and Adnan's inconsistent statement to police about asking for  ride, etc. They go on to say:

"Given the totality of the evidence the jury heard, we conclude that there is not a significant or substantial possibility that the verdict would have been different had trial counsel presented Ms. McClain as an alibi witness. Ms. McClain would have been an alibi witness who contradicted the defendant’s own statements, which were themselves already internally inconsistent; thus Ms. McClain’s proffered testimony could have further undermined Mr. Syed’s credibility. Moreover, Ms. McClain’s account was cabined to a narrow window of time in the afternoon of January 13, 1999. Her testimony would not have served to rebut the evidence the State presented relative to Mr. Syed’s actions on the evening of January 13, 1999. At best, her testimony would have highlighted Mr. Syed’s failure to account precisely for his whereabouts after school on January 13, 1999. Trial counsel’s deficient performance, therefore, could not have prejudiced Mr. Syed in light of the totality of the evidence presented to the jury." 

 

Could you be so kind to remind me - why was Asia's testimony excluded from the original trial? Did she provide an alibi at that time (of the trial), or did she come out later?

[bschoolprof 6,254]

7 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Could you be so kind to remind me - why was Asia's testimony excluded from the original trial? Did she provide an alibi at that time (of the trial), or did she come out later?

She was not called at trial. Adnan claims he told his trial attorney about her and there is evidence of her name being written down in a defense clerk's file. But Asia claims she was never contacted. That's the basis of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  

We do know that a defense investigator visited the library and asked about video surveillance, so some investigation of the library alibi was done by the defense.

Also, as an aside, there are some doubts about Asia's veracity.  Her two letters are a bit odd.  There's some evidence they were solicited by Adnan seeking an alibi and were backdated.

Edited March 9, 2019 by bschoolprof

[Kyle 207]

3 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

She was not called at trial. Adnan claims he told his trial attorney about her and there is evidence of her name being written down in a defense clerk's file. But Asia claims she was never contacted. That's the basis of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  

We do know that a defense investigator visited the library and asked about video surveillance, so some investigation of the library alibi was done by the defense.

Also, as an aside, there are some doubts about Asia's veracity.  Her two letters are a bit odd.  There's some evidence they were solicited by Adnan seeking an alibi and were backdated.

Thanks. I did a quick search and came across the Baltimore Sun article quoting two other students that doubted her - basically she stated to them she wanted to help Adnan and given him an alibi. Speculating of course, but IIRC he was a very popular and charismatic kid. If he was in the library, I think there would have been multiple people that could have corroborated her story. On the attorney, I realize she was having a breakdown, but she was no PD, so despite her own personal issues, I assume she still would have had a commensurate staff of assistants, investigators, etc., that would have vetted Asia.